At first glance, there are some superficial similarities between Weird Worlds and FTL; both are ship-based, roguelike games. But they are otherwise substantially different experiences. Weird Worlds presents the player with an open map and a fairly generous time limit to explore it in order to find upgrades and acrue wealth. This gives the game a very different feel to it compared to FTL, but it's not why I am giving this a thumbs down.
I gave this a couple of attempts, putting little more than half an hour into actually playing it before I decided I was done. The reason being that the choices the game offers lack any reasonable sense of transparency. Apart from hyperdrive upgrades, none of the other things you can augment your ship with includes numbers. Everything is descriptive rather than quantitative. This may well be a valid approach. The history of roguelikes is replete with games that thrive on obfuscation and player experimentation (e.g. "drink red potion? Y/N"). But I think it is terribly misplaced here. The combat system in the game is a little like Gratuitous Space Battles. It's a 2D map with ships on either side of the screen squaring off. The player can choose targets for each of their ships, or whether a ship holds off or retreats. The rest of the engagement is handled automatically. For me, this was instantly just a way too chaotic environment for me to learn the basic efficacy of a given ship upgrade or anything else for that matter. I am loathe to do too much comparing to FTL, as it just ends up sounding like I like that more than Weird Worlds. I do, but I also came to this looking for something different. With all that said, I have to say that what FTL does right is that it presents situations where it's possible to see what is going on step by step. While there might be a steep learning curve, and one neglected thing overwhelms you while you are busy learning about something else, there is still a constant sense that you are learning something all the time, even if you're losing horribly. Weird Worlds lacks that transparency. Whether you win or lose an encounter, it is really hard to know what helped or hindered the situation.
There may be a lot of depth to the game a couple of hours in that I will never see. But I am choosing to recommend against this game because it simply offered me little incentive to keep going far enough to learn of any hidden potential.